PDA

View Full Version : Would paladins come from nobility?



paladinofshojo
2012-07-17, 03:01 PM
Just a thought, but seeing as paladins usually require plate armor (which is expensive on a realistic setting) aswell as usually have a warhorse (which is also expensive) it just doesn't make any sense to me how people of humble origins could be able to afford to be a paladin. I can see the son of a well-off merchant being a paladin but not that of a peasant.

amaryllis
2012-07-17, 03:04 PM
depends. I love to create in depth histories for all of my characters, if I wanted my character to come from nobility then I would make him a noble, if I wanted him to come from anywhere else I would and I would find a way to explain it....but that's me.

Deophaun
2012-07-17, 03:16 PM
Well, you're assuming that the paladin got all his wealth from his family. Historically, this is not always the case.

Take the instance of the Crusades. It was not unheard of for poor villages to pool their resources to outfit one of their own with arms and armor, to send them on a pilgrimage (as that's officially what crusaders were: pilgrims) to carry the sins of the entire village to a a holy site (like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem)

So, your Paladin could get his fancy armor from the faithful in his community, outfitted to show their devotion to their patron deity. As for the war horse, well, the Paladin gets a divine one for free :)

Ravens_cry
2012-07-17, 03:18 PM
Many of them perhaps, and the default fluff seems to indicate this.
Personally I think a lot of adventurers period come from nobility, albeit minor non-inheriting sons and daughters who are used to the comforts of wealth, have the funds to buy the equipment, but can't be assured of this continuing.
That being said, I like to subvert fluff in small ways.
An archer paladin who born of freeborn peasants, a family man, is something I've always wanted to try.

Eldan
2012-07-17, 03:23 PM
Just a thought, but seeing as paladins usually require plate armor (which is expensive on a realistic setting) aswell as usually have a warhorse (which is also expensive) it just doesn't make any sense to me how people of humble origins could be able to afford to be a paladin. I can see the son of a well-off merchant being a paladin but not that of a peasant.

If we divorce the Paladin image from the Knight image a little... what makes a Paladin different from a fighter, in my eyes is, primarily, their divine calling. And I see no reason why more nobles should be called upon by the Heavens than peasants. Sure, they might not charge evil on their warhorses quite as often, but I see no reason why you can't smite an imp with a warscythe instead.

Lord Tyger
2012-07-17, 03:24 PM
I think the theory is that a Paladin is usually supplied by their church or order. The real world equivalent (in infrastructure terms, if not in general morality) would be the Knights Templar and other military orders, who received donations from various wealthy families with the encouragement of the Catholic Church.

That said, yes, a lot of them were the offspring of noble houses, generally second or greater sons who didn't stand to inherit. Look at it this way- a peasant's livelihood depends on getting a certain amount of work done. Realistically, by the time the child's old enough to enter a holy order, they're working full time in the fields. Peasants often can't afford to send their children away to serve the church without risking slipping further into poverty because of not being able to bring in the harvest. On the other hand, if you're a wealthy family, you train your first son to manage the estate when he inherits, perhaps the second son to command his military forces or help with the management, and you marry off the daughters (IRL Europe- substitute genders as needed for your campaign setting) but then you've got however many left (and there'll often be a surplus, because child mortality is high enough that you have lots to ensure that at least some survive to adulthood) who stand no chance of inheriting, and at best if they remain home can look forward to a life of dependency on their older siblings.

Tvtyrant
2012-07-17, 03:25 PM
I tend to use the "invest in orphans" plan for Paladins. Like Miko or the paladin character from the Baker's Boy series, orphans that are effectively bought as children to be turned into priests/paladins/etc.

BRC
2012-07-17, 03:46 PM
If we divorce the Paladin image from the Knight image a little... what makes a Paladin different from a fighter, in my eyes is, primarily, their divine calling. And I see no reason why more nobles should be called upon by the Heavens than peasants. Sure, they might not charge evil on their warhorses quite as often, but I see no reason why you can't smite an imp with a warscythe instead.

This, by DnD rules, a peasant who smites evil with a broken broom handle (Improvised shortspear!) is just as much as Paladin as somebody clad in gleaming plate.

The problem is that, unlike the Crusades, not everybody can become a Paladin. Anybody with a weapon and the willingness to fight (whether for faith, glory, or plunder) could become a crusader. A Paladin however, must truly devote themselves to the cause of good. The only way to be sure somebody will make a good paladin is to raise them as one.

Which raises an excellent origin story for Paladins: Bastards.

Noble families produce Bastard offspring, it's a fact, and Bastards are inconvenient, they can threaten your line of succession, ruin your reputation, and they keep hanging around, reminding everybody about your transgression.

So imagine this, a setting where Nobles who need to dispose of the odd bastard, send the small infants to be raised by an order of Paladins, usually with a considerable donation to cover the child's upbringing, training, and equipment. Nobody can look down upon a nobleman for donating to an order of paladins, the children receive a good upbringing, and it helps avoid those awkward dinners where everybody is trying not to comment on how much the servant girl's baby looks like the duke.

Of course the Paladin orders don't say where they get the orphans they raise. And the paladins themselves, being brought up with no goals besides battling evil, wouldn't bother to claim their birthrights even if they found out who their true parents were.

Heh, that could be a fun plot . The last trueborn heir to the local throne is dead, so they have to track down the bastard heir, who is now a paladin with no idea of his lineage, save him before he dies in his quest against evil, then convince him to take up the throne.
Then stop him from bankrupting the kingdom because he has no idea how to run a government.

paladinofshojo
2012-07-17, 03:54 PM
Take the instance of the Crusades. It was not unheard of for poor villages to pool their resources to outfit one of their own with arms and armor, to send them on a pilgrimage (as that's officially what crusaders were: pilgrims) to carry the sins of the entire village to a a holy site (like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem)



True, but many of the poor would be too illprepared for battle, seeing as a medieval warhorse is the equivallent of a rolls royce today. Hell, they were so important that they were ferried TO battles instead of being ridden there. And that is not to bring in the cost of metal armor and weapons. Even mail was ludricously expensive.

Another problem was that the majority of the peasants who came on the Crusades were there to serve as auxillary rather than troops. After all, all those knights who did travel across Europe needed someone to cook and clean for them and their horses.


I tend to use the "invest in orphans" plan for Paladins. Like Miko or the paladin character from the Baker's Boy series, orphans that are effectively bought as children to be turned into priests/paladins/etc.

True, but in reality, this leads to the question of "Why buy what you can rent?" Lesser and bastard sons of nobility are all around that would either join the military or the clergy. It's cheaper to use them instead of having to clothe and feed soldiers from the cradle.

Katana_Geldar
2012-07-17, 04:08 PM
I've always likes the idea that some are wards of the church, no parents and them serving in the field if battle is their way of giving back to the intiturion that raised them. Different orders equivalents would raise different kinds of Paladins, like a Knight Hospitaler of St John would be rather heal focused.

BRC
2012-07-17, 04:08 PM
True, but many of the poor would be too illprepared for battle, seeing as a medieval warhorse is the equivallent of a rolls royce today. Hell, they were so important that they were ferried TO battles instead of being ridden there. And that is not to bring in the cost of metal armor and weapons. Even mail was ludricously expensive.
Why would they need a warhorse? Despite modern depictions of the "Knight in Shining Armor", battles were still fought by unwashed masses of undertrained and underequipped infantry who died by the droves, but that dosn't make them any less Crusaders than the knights on horseback.

Remember that the pictures of DnD characters all assume a standard WBL. If a character isn't wearing full plate, it's usually because something about their class (Lack of proficiency, ASF, penalties to vital skills, ect) discourages heavy armor.

I actually worked it out once while making an epic-level character with Leadership. Using my first level followers WBL and the 3.0 Arms and Equipment guide, I was able to have my basic footsoldier wearing heavy armor (not quite full plate), with my cavalry riding dire bats or trained war rhinos.

paladinofshojo
2012-07-17, 04:12 PM
Why would they need a warhorse? Despite modern depictions of the "Knight in Shining Armor", battles were still fought by unwashed masses of undertrained and underequipped infantry who died by the droves, but that dosn't make them any less Crusaders than the knights on horseback.


True, but we're not talking about Crusaders, we're talking about Paladins... the archetypical "Knight on horseback".

Tvtyrant
2012-07-17, 04:14 PM
True, but in reality, this leads to the question of "Why buy what you can rent?" Lesser and bastard sons of nobility are all around that would either join the military or the clergy. It's cheaper to use them instead of having to clothe and feed soldiers from the cradle.

Well, they have to be fanatically devoted to be a Paladin. Raising someone to be like that is difficult enough, but hoping to find enough of them in a single class is near impossible. Remember, these aren't soldiers, they're Paladins.

Morty
2012-07-17, 04:15 PM
You're assuming that any given fantasy world - despite this thread being in the general Roleplaying section you seem to be talking exclusively about D&D - works exactly like medieval Europe. This is not a safe assumption to make. Fantasy worlds often have medieval European trappings, but they don't work the same way.
Besides, who says a paladin has to have plate armour and a warhorse? D&D rules do not. When they recieve a special mount at level 6, it comes from the celestial realms. Again, you're assuming things that are not true.

Kish
2012-07-17, 04:18 PM
Just a thought, but seeing as paladins usually require plate armor

No.

(which is expensive on a realistic setting) aswell as usually have a warhorse (which is also expensive)

...and have a celestial warhorse as a class feature...

it just doesn't make any sense to me how people of humble origins could be able to afford to be a paladin.
If you decide that a wizard "requires" a Staff of the Magi, suddenly it's a lot harder to explain why there would be any non-nobility wizards.

Deophaun
2012-07-17, 04:24 PM
True, but many of the poor would be too illprepared for battle, seeing as a medieval warhorse is the equivallent of a rolls royce today. Hell, they were so important that they were ferried TO battles instead of being ridden there. And that is not to bring in the cost of metal armor and weapons. Even mail was ludricously expensive.
And it's ludicrously expensive for a starting 1st level paladin, unless he doesn't mind going without a sword or any other trifling possessions, like food.

The paladin does not get his shiny plate armor and (mundane) war horse until he has actually finished an adventure that provides enough wealth to purchase those. He is no more well provisioned than the average fighter or ranger.

Ravens_cry
2012-07-17, 04:30 PM
And it's ludicrously expensive for a starting 1st level paladin, unless he doesn't mind going without a sword or any other trifling possessions, like food.

The paladin does not get his shiny plate armor and (mundane) war horse until he has actually finished an adventure that provides enough wealth to purchase those. He is no more well provisioned than the average fighter or ranger.
The average fighter starts with over a 100 gold worth of gear. That's a fortune by D&D peasant standards.

BRC
2012-07-17, 04:37 PM
True, but we're not talking about Crusaders, we're talking about Paladins... the archetypical "Knight on horseback".
No they're not. They're DEPICTED that way by the art, because the art assumes full WBL, which provides plenty of money for big shiny armor. Technically, paladins don't have any more money than fighters, rogues, wizards, or rangers.
Well, they may have a little bit more, because they get free warhorses.

However, saying all Paladins must be nobles is saying that every PC must be from a noble family, since they all have the same WBL. Nobody blinks when I say "My rogue grew up dirt poor on the streets of a shady port town", and then give my character a magic dagger that costs more than the combined annual income of some towns.

Deophaun
2012-07-17, 04:51 PM
The average fighter starts with over a 100 gold worth of gear. That's a fortune by D&D peasant standards.
Yet we don't see the OP asking if Fighters, Rangers, Clerics, Rogues, Bards or Barbarians come from nobility. Only Paladins.

Ravens_cry
2012-07-17, 04:52 PM
@BRC:
Actually, I would blink unless you had a justification, which isn't hard.
Say you stole it from someone and now they want it back.
Bam, instant character hook, reason to be part of the party, and equipment justification.

Yet we don't see the OP asking if Fighters, Rangers, Clerics, Rogues, Bards or Barbarians come from nobility. Only Paladins.
As I said in an earlier post, I do think most in fact are.
As I also said, there can and should be exceptions.

kamikasei
2012-07-17, 04:55 PM
Just a thought, but seeing as paladins usually require plate armor (which is expensive on a realistic setting) aswell as usually have a warhorse (which is also expensive) it just doesn't make any sense to me how people of humble origins could be able to afford to be a paladin. I can see the son of a well-off merchant being a paladin but not that of a peasant.
Seconding the above posters from Kish on down. At least in D&D 3.5, either you focus on mounted combat from first level and so invest in a mount (which is affordable with the wealth you start with, just like any PC's basic starting gear has to be affordable), or you pick up a good mount when you need it with the wealth you've accrued by that point, just like you'll have to wait for plate armour if you want to have it. This is exactly the same as any other PC, all of whom start out well-off and quickly become ridiculously wealthy. If you want to have the economics of your particular setting work a certain way in your particular game, whether 3.5 or any other edition or system, then paladins of the plated-knight-on-horseback sort will be restricted just like a whole swath of other concepts, and people may opt to play paladins of other sorts with different images.

PCs tend to get what they need, and don't need to start out with everything they'd like to eventually have.

Spiryt
2012-07-17, 05:06 PM
In "realistic setting" (medieval or later Europe, I guess) there could perfectly easily be piss poor noble and wealthy peasant.

Peasant would of course be still be less likely to have armor and stuff, because trough the ages nobles pretty much from definition and obligation were expected to be warrior class - but it's perfectly feasible for peasant son who turned into military carrier to have armor and horse...

Katana_Geldar
2012-07-17, 05:07 PM
Well, the said armour, mount and weapon might not even be theirs, just on loan from the order and to be sent back on their death or fall.

Deophaun
2012-07-17, 05:16 PM
As I said in an earlier post, I do think most in fact are.
Then there are a lot of nobles running around in D&D. Like, throw a rock and you'll hit one and it will bounce off and hit another. "That ogre you killed was actually Baron von Gurlock, and the other ogre was Duke Urk" lots.

Plus, the statement requires that most players pick some kind of noble birth for their characters. But, I'd like to see the survey before I comment on that.

Ravens_cry
2012-07-17, 05:38 PM
Then there are a lot of nobles running around in D&D. Like, throw a rock and you'll hit one and it will bounce off and hit another. "That ogre you killed was actually Baron von Gurlock, and the other ogre was Duke Urk" lots.


Why? I'm talking about adventurers, not monsters.



Plus, the statement requires that most players pick some kind of noble birth for their characters. But, I'd like to see the survey before I comment on that.
Well, I'm not talking about player choices, but rather what is logistically realistic. You and your party might play some potentially justified exception, but most other characters who would identify as 'adventurers' are for reasons of logistics and motivation.

navar100
2012-07-17, 05:45 PM
Paladins do not require armor. They only require faith and dedication. Anyone willing and able to take upon the burden becomes a paladin.

Acquiring platemail or other equipment comes later. It's not as if 1st level paladins are running around in platemail.

Paladins respect and honor legitimate authority, but paladinhood is not derived from government. A particular society might, sure, fine, but not in general. A King's Paladin will not dismiss the peasant farmer who smote the imp.

Lysander
2012-07-17, 06:07 PM
Depends on the society and religion. Some might reserve being a paladin just for nobles. Others may open it up to anyone pious and physically capable.

I could also see a single organization having different orders of paladins serving it, some restricted to nobles and some not, each with their own customs and rules. Paladins don't have to be a single monolithic group that all behave the same way and believe the same thing, even if they're allies and working for the same deity.

Deophaun
2012-07-17, 06:28 PM
Why? I'm talking about adventurers, not monsters.
If the wealth as such is so tied to social status that the majority of people who would have it are noble, that means that either the monsters are also largely noble, or they have killed a heck of a lot of noble people to get it. Either way, you have a surplus of nobility in the realm. Your average guttersnipe is probably second cousin to the prince or something.

Well, I'm not talking about player choices, but rather what is logistically realistic.
Logistically realistic does not exist in D&D. There would have to be an economy for that.

You and your party might play some potentially justified exception, but most other characters who would identify as 'adventurers' are for reasons of logistics and motivation.
As I stated, I want to see the survey results to see if my group is exceptional for our lack of noble birth, versus the rest of the player community (that's what the PHB is for, after all).

Ravens_cry
2012-07-17, 06:47 PM
If the wealth as such is so tied to social status that the majority of people who would have it are noble, that means that either the monsters are also largely noble, or they have killed a heck of a lot of noble people to get it. Either way, you have a surplus of nobility in the realm. Your average guttersnipe is probably second cousin to the prince or something.

You are exaggerating. Most brutish monsters are unlikely to have a peerage.
In many settings, 'civilised' races do.
Your 'average guttersnipe' is adequately represented in the rules as a level 1 commoner with no skills in craft or profession.


Logistically realistic does not exist in D&D. There would have to be an economy for that.

There is an economy, albeit a majorly screwed up one, with prices for many listed goods unattainable to the average peasant.
Which is a large portion of my argument.


As I stated, I want to see the survey results to see if my group is exceptional for our lack of noble birth, versus the rest of the player community (that's what the PHB is for, after all).
There is no 'player community' in game, with the exception of 'Living' settings, like 'Living Greyhawk' and such. Every table, likely each campaign is an iteration unto itself, a different, but parallel, universe.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-17, 07:01 PM
One thing, that seems to be getting taken for granted, is that people seem to be assuming that the 1st level pc's actually buy their gear. It's not a stretch to imagine that the paladin's longsword is a family heirloom. His grandfather spent a summer or three as a paid mecenary, then used the savings he put away to start a family and build a farm. Likewise the rogue probably got his dagger and lockpicks from his mentor, whether that mentor was a relative or not. A fighter could easily have picked his guisarme up from the litter of a battlefield. Just because something is valuable doesn't mean the only way to get it is by purchase. Then, of course, there's the fact that even a failed first level adventure could yield dozens or even hundreds of gold pieces, assuming the adventurers survived.

EDIT: There's also crafting. If you made most/ all of your gear, it only cost 1/3 of its market value. Just because the player used the starting wealth figures to pick his gear, doesn't mean the character ever had a cp to his name.

Deophaun
2012-07-17, 07:03 PM
You are exaggerating. Most brutish monsters are unlikely to have a peerage.
In many settings, 'civilised' races do.

And the monsters still need to get their wealth from somewhere.

There is an economy, albeit a majorly screwed up one, with prices for many listed goods unattainable to the average peasant.
Which is a large portion of my argument.
Which actually defeats your argument. A peasant with a ramshackle hut is rich, as that hut can be sold for half its value to buy some chainmail.

And that means there are lots of seriously skilled craftsmen in the world, otherwise it would take too long to erect any kind of structure without magic, let alone all the structures for a thorp, hamlet, village, town, city, etc. Now we have a lot of wealthy artisans in the world. But, we know that at least 51% of those who qualify as rich must be noble (otherwise, the non-noble adventurer would not be an exception), so that necessitates at least an equal growth in the noble population.

But, this assumes there's an economy running. Fortunately, there isn't, so we aren't tripping over carpenters with massive estates.

There is no 'player community' in game, with the exception of 'Living' settings, like 'Living Greyhawk' and such. Every table, likely each campaign is an iteration unto itself, a different, but parallel, universe.The listings for starting wealth in the PHB are for player characters, not NPCs (which use different wealth tables in the DMG). Therefore, any talk about averages concerning PHB characters must be referring to characters that have been created by a player. So, I want to see the survey you are pulling from.

Ravens_cry
2012-07-17, 07:06 PM
One thing, that seems to be getting taken for granted, is that people seem to be assuming that the 1st level pc's actually buy their gear. It's not a stretch to imagine that the paladin's longsword is a family heirloom. His grandfather spent a summer or three as a paid mecenary, then used the savings he put away to start a family and build a farm. Likewise the rogue probably got his dagger and lockpicks from his mentor, whether that mentor was a relative or not. A fighter could easily have picked his guisarme up from the litter of a battlefield. Just because something is valuable doesn't mean the only way to get it is by purchase. Then, of course, there's the fact that even a failed first level adventure could yield dozens or even hundreds of gold pieces, assuming the adventurers survived.
Yes, like I said, there can be exceptions, but they should be justified.
This is what, among other things, backstories are for, how did you get here and why are you here.

paladinofshojo
2012-07-17, 09:37 PM
Which actually defeats your argument. A peasant with a ramshackle hut is rich, as that hut can be sold for half its value to buy some chainmail.



That only works if said peasant is a freeman who owns his own hut. And not some serf under complete dominion of a landowning noble. Remember, in a medieval economy, services are cheap whereas goods are expensive. Labor is extremely cheap whereas property and physical wealth are extremely valuable. It's not until the Industrial Revolution where that trend ends up being reversed.




And that means there are lots of seriously skilled craftsmen in the world, otherwise it would take too long to erect any kind of structure without magic, let alone all the structures for a thorp, hamlet, village, town, city, etc. Now we have a lot of wealthy artisans in the world. But, we know that at least 51% of those who qualify as rich must be noble (otherwise, the non-noble adventurer would not be an exception), so that necessitates at least an equal growth in the noble population.



Well yeah, but you forget the fact that there is also war, plague and other natural disasters also affect economic and physical growth. If not that, then there's also the fact that many medieval-esqe economies are decentralized governments with very little money in circulation. So unless your family already have land, money, or military strength from the get-go you're pretty much screwed with no hope of social advancement, no matter how skilled you are at your trade.

North_Ranger
2012-07-18, 10:38 AM
That only works if said peasant is a freeman who owns his own hut. And not some serf under complete dominion of a landowning noble. Remember, in a medieval economy, services are cheap whereas goods are expensive. Labor is extremely cheap whereas property and physical wealth are extremely valuable. It's not until the Industrial Revolution where that trend ends up being reversed.

Just gonna point out that despite the stereotypical image of dung-eating peasants bound to the soil, the feudal system was not actually completely universal in Europe. In Scandinavian countries, for instance, the feudal division didn't take root, and most people farming their lands were freemen with quite significant rights (there are for instance mentions of farmers from Finland - then part of Sweden - taking their goods to sell as far as Stockholm, across the Baltic Sea). Not saying that was true for everyone; farmhands and maids were in a lot poorer position, but it wasn't until after the Middle Ages that something akin to serfdom arose, in the form of non-landed workers renting a piece of land from landed farmers for a few years in return for labour and a share of their crops.

But I digress.

Nonetheless, I'd like to derail for a bit and ask this: if a person wants to play a knight, do they automatically have to play a paladin? Can a fighter, for instance, be considered a knight, or are fighters just basically sellswords, condottieri, mercenaries and such? Or should I just them to go and play cavalier (starting a Pathfinder campaign)?

BRC
2012-07-18, 10:42 AM
Just gonna point out that despite the stereotypical image of dung-eating peasants bound to the soil, the feudal system was not actually completely universal in Europe. In Scandinavian countries, for instance, the feudal division didn't take root, and most people farming their lands were freemen with quite significant rights (there are for instance mentions of farmers from Finland - then part of Sweden - taking their goods to sell as far as Stockholm, across the Baltic Sea). Not saying that was true for everyone; farmhands and maids were in a lot poorer position, but it wasn't until after the Middle Ages that something akin to serfdom arose, in the form of non-landed workers renting a piece of land from landed farmers for a few years in return for labour and a share of their crops.

But I digress.

Nonetheless, I'd like to derail for a bit and ask this: if a person wants to play a knight, do they automatically have to play a paladin? Can a fighter, for instance, be considered a knight, or are fighters just basically sellswords, condottieri, mercenaries and such? Or should I just them to go and play cavalier (starting a Pathfinder campaign)?
I would say your traditional Knight, one who serves a lord, would be more likely to be a Fighter than a Paladin. Unless the noble in question was especially virtuous, a Paladin would be an unreliable servant. They're great if you need to put down a local necromancer, but if you rely on Paladins for your fighting force it reduces your ability to fight against non-evil foes. Two good-aligned nobles can still go to war over, say, a territorial dispute, and in that case the Paladins either sit out the fight, thus losing their powers since they are breaking their oaths to their lords, or fight and kill other good-or-neutral aligned soldiers, which can ALSO cause them to lose their powers.

Yora
2012-07-18, 10:52 AM
Noble birth, combat training, cash. That's all that's needed for a knight.
Fighter is probably the best suited D&D class for that.

With a paladin I never know what they are supposed to be, that a fighter/cleric is not. Sure, D&D did not invent the term paladin, but all people who had that term applied to them had none of the powers that make a paladin different from a fighter.

A D&D paladin is whatever D&D books say it is.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-18, 11:17 AM
There is, of course, the knight from PHB2. Though the optimizers will tell you its only worth a dip.

Even in their time knights were rare. Most of a landholder's forces were either paid men-at-arms or peasant conscripts pressed into service.

Spiryt
2012-07-18, 11:37 AM
Most of a landholder's forces were either paid men-at-arms

Which could be knights in many cases as well - knighted, noble born warrior, but without any land or significant wealth from whatever reason - maybe being nth son for example - becoming man-at-arm was only pretty logical then.



Noble birth, combat training, cash.

Trough the most of medieval period, noble birth wasn't even required, cause knighthood or nobility in general wasn't really closed state, in Poland nobility hadn't really formed before 14th century, for example, English kings were knighting quite a lot of people for merits and so on

So one have to decide how exactly his feudal fantasy system looks like, before deciding where paladins should come from.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-18, 02:25 PM
Which could be knights in many cases as well - knighted, noble born warrior, but without any land or significant wealth from whatever reason - maybe being nth son for example - becoming man-at-arm was only pretty logical then.

[snip]

So one have to decide how exactly his feudal fantasy system looks like, before deciding where paladins should come from.

True. Men-at-arms could be knights, but most weren't.

As for paladins in particular: One thing that cannot be ignored, regardless of your socio-political landscape, is the fact that all paladins are called upon to battle evil, not by any mortal ruler, but by some supernatural LG force. Being a paladin is completely independent of your social class.

Edit: I suppose that, if your socio-political landscape is topped by a god-king, your social standing -might- have bearing on whether or not you can be a paladin.

SoC175
2012-07-18, 03:05 PM
The average fighter starts with over a 100 gold worth of gear. That's a fortune by D&D peasant standards.In 4e yes and that's enough for a full plate at level one.

In 3.x the max starting gold for a fighter or paladin was 240 gp (if rolled well) and a non-magical full plate was 1,500 gp.

Even a chain mail was most likely too expensive at level 1, most heavy armor users started with scale mail, because they just could not afford anything better at 1st level

Seconding the above posters from Kish on down. At least in D&D 3.5, either you focus on mounted combat from first level and so invest in a mount (which is affordable with the wealth you start with,Only if you're fine with a pony. Anything else is too expensive, even if you do roll well, you better think twice before buying a horse at 75gp on top of your armor, weapon, shield and other gear

navar100
2012-07-18, 11:16 PM
In one campaign my cleric became a Knight. "Knight" is just a title of roleplay value. Character class is irrelevant. It's individual campaign dependent.

hayabusa
2012-07-19, 07:08 PM
Don't know if it's been said yet, but I can easily see a nobleman "donating" a younger child of his to make sure that there is no fighting with his eldest and a possibly ambitious younger child upon his death. Kind of like Sam Tarly in in ASOIF (not the perfect example, but involves the basic premise).

I can also see a lot of illegitimate children being placed in the care of an order of Paladins as well.

AgentofHellfire
2012-07-21, 10:35 AM
If you really wanted to take a dark spin on it, you could easily have an order of Paladins that basically picks up orphan kids and indoctrinates them early into believing those lines that "knights" do, so that fewer nobles have to do the fighting themselves.

Hell, I made a character that was brought up in one of these, though he wasn't a paladin.

Slipperychicken
2012-07-21, 11:12 PM
I always feel like Paladins would be more useful to a state as a money-handling bureaucrats than as frontliners. By their oaths, they can't lie, cheat, steal, or do anything corrupt at all, and you can check their Oaths at the end/beginning of every workday by asking them to Lay on Hands, Detect Evil, or check if their Aura of Good weakened at all.

Frosty
2012-07-22, 04:25 AM
NOTE: This is all under the assumption that the culture of nobility is similar to that of medieval or rennaisance europe.

I personally would find it hard to believe that the LG gods (aka those that might sponsor paladins) or just the divine lawful-goodness of the multiverse would EVER find the 'typical' noble worthy of paladin-hood. I think that most paladins would come from other social classes.

See, back in the day, nobles treated most people beneath their own stations as CRAP. Men (and let's not even talk about women) were NOT created equal, and there was very little notion in the sanctity and value of peasant life. This is in UTTER contrast to the paladin code! Paladins must respect life, help people whenever possible, be selfless, etc.

So no, the vast majority of nobles would not even be considered Good aligned, much less paladin material.

Jay R
2012-07-22, 09:22 AM
The original historical (fantasy) paladins are the twelve highest ranking peers in Charlemagne's court. So of course they are all nobles.

But D&D has completely distorted that, as with so much else. They come from wherever your DM allows them to come from.

Cerlis
2012-07-22, 12:28 PM
a starting paladin doesnt HAVE that armor. He cant afford it.
Look at the example character. shes wearing scale mail so cheap it looks like its made of leather.

AgentofHellfire
2012-07-22, 03:44 PM
I always feel like Paladins would be more useful to a state as a money-handling bureaucrats than as frontliners. By their oaths, they can't lie, cheat, steal, or do anything corrupt at all, and you can check their Oaths at the end/beginning of every workday by asking them to Lay on Hands, Detect Evil, or check if their Aura of Good weakened at all.

XD In spite of all the things that Paladins get that make them different from fighters, they are still warriors. For that matter, they're warriors with things like Aura of Courage, Divine Grace and well, Lay on Hands that make them immensely useful in battle.

Plus you need some corruption, from a noble perspective, when you want to do some things a bit outside the zone of legality.

paladinofshojo
2012-07-22, 10:33 PM
NOTE: This is all under the assumption that the culture of nobility is similar to that of medieval or rennaisance europe.


Well technically it is, seeing as we have bad nobles and good nobles throughout that time period. True not all knights lived up to chivalry but it would be a baseless argument to dismiss ALL of them as raping pillagers with a superiority complex.



I personally would find it hard to believe that the LG gods (aka those that might sponsor paladins) or just the divine lawful-goodness of the multiverse would EVER find the 'typical' noble worthy of paladin-hood. I think that most paladins would come from other social classes.


See the problem with that is "other social classes" means commoners, and seeing as most of them usually have to work to survive means that they don't have the means to become an altruistic paragon of virtue.



See, back in the day, nobles treated most people beneath their own stations as CRAP. Men (and let's not even talk about women) were NOT created equal, and there was very little notion in the sanctity and value of peasant life. This is in UTTER contrast to the paladin code! Paladins must respect life, help people whenever possible, be selfless, etc.

So no, the vast majority of nobles would not even be considered Good aligned, much less paladin material.

Putting aside the generalization that all nobles are apparently evil heartless bastards, a paladin also has to live by honor. Honor is a concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body such as a family, school, regiment or nation. The point I'm trying to make is that it would be unrealistic for peasants to be able to live by such standards due to the fact that unlike nobles they have to work to make ends meet. A noble has an easier time turning down a bribe to kill his king then a starving peasant right?

Kish
2012-07-23, 06:44 AM
Ah. So you've backed off your initial claim that paladins have to have expensive equipment, but instead of acknowledging that there's no reason for paladins to have to come from a wealthier class than any other adventurers, you're now arguing that morals themselves require wealth.

Not a significantly better claim.

Peat
2012-07-23, 12:54 PM
Just to add to everything else -

It's not like every well-equipped and respected warrior class in history has been free and nobly born - there are plenty of examples of such warriors coming from the poor or even slave classes. Even in medieval times you have the Ministeriales of Germany, where nobles would recruit serfs to be knights largely because free nobles felt it demeaning to enter such a relationship. Obviously that is a secular example, but I feel it holds.

So yeah. Plenty of ways Paladins can come not from the nobility, and whether they do or not depends on the culture of your gameworld, not the amount of cash they start with and the armour they're drawn with.

paladinofshojo
2012-07-23, 11:29 PM
Ah. So you've backed off your initial claim that paladins have to have expensive equipment, but instead of acknowledging that there's no reason for paladins to have to come from a wealthier class than any other adventurers, you're now arguing that morals themselves require wealth.

Not a significantly better claim.

1) I never backed off that claim. The cost of rearing a paladin is one that could only be supported by a family of means. Think about it, how could a farmer be able to sacrifice his child to such a cause? Not only will he lose a farmhand he will also have to pay for at least his initial training aswell as his starting armor.

2) I never said morals require wealth, however, HONOR is typically more common in those of nobility rather than their less priviledged peers. Think about it, who are more likely to have a romanticized vision of war and combat, the noble who came from a long line of distinguished officers or the peasant boy who lost his father in a warring raid? That's why paladins rarely resort to stealth or poison, they prefer to meet their enemies head on in "honorable combat" because they truly believe in ideals over reality. Anyone with such a belief system has to come from an atleast well-off family. Who else but a sheltered noble would put ideals over common sense?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-23, 11:42 PM
1) I never backed off that claim. The cost of rearing a paladin is one that could only be supported by a family of means. Think about it, how could a farmer be able to sacrifice his child to such a cause? Not only will he lose a farmhand he will also have to pay for at least his initial training aswell as his starting armor.

2) I never said morals require wealth, however, HONOR is typically more common in those of nobility rather than their less priviledged peers. Think about it, who are more likely to have a romanticized vision of war and combat, the noble who came from a long line of distinguished officers or the peasant boy who lost his father in a warring raid? That's why paladins rarely resort to stealth or poison, they prefer to meet their enemies head on in "honorable combat" because they truly believe in ideals over reality. Anyone with such a belief system has to come from an atleast well-off family.

What makes you think that a paladin is raised to be a paladin? Learning the basics of using a sword and armor takes a fairly short period of time. The farmer's son may have always wanted to grow up to be a knight, but never gave the idea any serious thought until he had some sort of epiphany and left home to learn the ways of war so as to combat the dark forces that would consume us all. Only the children of adventurers are raised to be adventurers.

Peat
2012-07-24, 02:09 AM
1) I never backed off that claim. The cost of rearing a paladin is one that could only be supported by a family of means. Think about it, how could a farmer be able to sacrifice his child to such a cause? Not only will he lose a farmhand he will also have to pay for at least his initial training aswell as his starting armor.

2) I never said morals require wealth, however, HONOR is typically more common in those of nobility rather than their less priviledged peers. Think about it, who are more likely to have a romanticized vision of war and combat, the noble who came from a long line of distinguished officers or the peasant boy who lost his father in a warring raid? That's why paladins rarely resort to stealth or poison, they prefer to meet their enemies head on in "honorable combat" because they truly believe in ideals over reality. Anyone with such a belief system has to come from an atleast well-off family. Who else but a sheltered noble would put ideals over common sense?

1) Alternately, he gets rid of a mouth he can't feed. You're also assuming that whoever's taking him on isn't willing to pony up for the training and equipment themselves, which I wouldn't find unrealistic.

2) It's not difficult to find examples of the religiously zealous and unaristocratic whose actions seemed to owe more to their ideals and faith than their common sense. The crusades have some good examples

Moreover, since it appears their God of choice expects them to act honourably, and since without their approval they're just an undertrained fighter, it would seem the height of common sense for a Paladin to act honourably at all times.

Kish
2012-07-24, 07:06 AM
1) I never backed off that claim. The cost of rearing a paladin is one that could only be supported by a family of means. Think about it, how could a farmer be able to sacrifice his child to such a cause? Not only will he lose a farmhand he will also have to pay for at least his initial training aswell as his starting armor.

Lots of people have pointed out to you that a first-level paladin does not have or require more money than a first-level member of any other class, and that "paladins must come from nobility so they can afford armor!" is no more valid than, "Barbarians must come from nobility so they can afford greataxes!" You're just ignoring them all for some reason.


2) I never said morals require wealth, however, HONOR is typically more common in those of nobility rather than their less priviledged peers. Think about it, who are more likely to have a romanticized vision of war and combat,
Because "having a romanticized vision of war and combat"* means honor and devotion to Good strong enough to be a paladin. Instead of being most likely to produce a conceited Lawful Evil member of the Aristocrat class.

*Reminds me of nothing more than a short story I read once where a priest and a Knight of Solamnia, the Dragonlance version of a paladin, were arguing over the new trainees' potential. The priest calls Stezan "a tall and clumsy oaf of a boy." The knight replies, "I'm tall. I was clumsy. He'll do fine." But the knight doesn't say, because it's against his teaching philosophy to say that one of the students really impressed him right away, that when all the other new students were asking trivial questions, Stezan asked what it's like to be unable to stop your companions from dying, and when the knight said "sometimes you can't," Stezan said quietly, "That's hard."

Roderick_BR
2012-07-24, 12:05 PM
I remember seing somewhere that paladins could come from high ranks of nobility, or meek backgrounds alike. Maybe as a poor and young squire, looking for scholarship of older and richer paladins.
Nowhere it says they *need* to wear plate. They can earn it with years of hard work after starting out. Also, seeing as of 3.5, they can summon a magical mount, they don't need to expend money on it (and in 3.0, they suggest you can find yourself a wild steed and tame it, no money required too).

But no, paladins can come from any background.

hamishspence
2012-07-24, 12:07 PM
I kinda like Heralds of Valdemar's approach- magic horse turns up and chooses you, rather than "you summon the horse when you're skilled enough".

paladinofshojo
2012-07-25, 03:01 PM
Lots of people have pointed out to you that a first-level paladin does not have or require more money than a first-level member of any other class, and that "paladins must come from nobility so they can afford armor!" is no more valid than, "Barbarians must come from nobility so they can afford greataxes!" You're just ignoring them all for some reason.


If we're going to argue semantics then I would point that your barbarian argument would be mute because an axe is a common all-purpose tool that has more uses than just warfare. That's why it was significantly cheaper than say, a sword since a sword has only one use, which is killing another person, it's only good for war, which is why only nobility carry one around. The weapons of choice for common people are tools that they used in their daily life or hunting, like longbows, axes, daggers, etc.



Because "having a romanticized vision of war and combat"* means honor and devotion to Good strong enough to be a paladin. Instead of being most likely to produce a conceited Lawful Evil member of the Aristocrat class.


Someone obviously has a skewed opinion of nobility, sure there were a lot of concieted ones but there were also many who took their responsabilities seriously. A noble offspring is most likely able to be trained and indoctrined early on into fitting the mold of a paladin, unlike the farmer's son who is unsheltered from the harsh realities of the world before he is ideally ready to face them.


1) Alternately, he gets rid of a mouth he can't feed. You're also assuming that whoever's taking him on isn't willing to pony up for the training and equipment themselves, which I wouldn't find unrealistic.


This isn't apprenticing to become a butcher or a blacksmith, this is learning the art of combat, and going to combat is expensive, so it's unlikely anyone is willing to pay for an average peasant's child.What kind of powerful paladin (which at a high level is in all intensive purposes a holy knight) would take in a squire who is from a lower class and has no prior training, the paladin would probably say "he will probably get himself killed" just to be nice about it. Unless the lower born shows an intense power or zeal suitable to lead knights into battle (such as Joan of Arc) then he/she has no chance of becomming a paladin.




2) It's not difficult to find examples of the religiously zealous and unaristocratic whose actions seemed to owe more to their ideals and faith than their common sense. The crusades have some good examples


The fact that for the most part of the (proper) Crusades (1st-3rd) that the peasants served more as auxillary than anything. Hell, someone had to take care of all those horses and feed the hungry men-at-arms and knights.




Moreover, since it appears their God of choice expects them to act honourably, and since without their approval they're just an undertrained fighter, it would seem the height of common sense for a Paladin to act honourably at all times.

Yes, but acting honourably all the time is expensive, a nobleman doesn't have to steal or cheat or do anything dishonorable because of his wealth. However what about a peasant? Someone who's starving on a day-to-day basis could easilly be coerced into stealing or banditry.

Kish
2012-07-25, 03:58 PM
If we're going to argue semantics .
We're not. You're going to acknowledge that paladins don't require the gear you're insisting they do, or you aren't. Entirely up to you.



Someone obviously has a skewed opinion of nobility,

Someone has a lot of whacked-out ideas about paladins which he has made no effort to support with anything but repetition.

I have no particular opinion of nobility in a generic D&D world. I was not the one who said that a prerequisite for a paladin was to "have a romanticized vision of war and combat," explicitly linking being deluded to being a holy champion of Good. Your argument would be no better were you arguing that only a farmer's son (I like the way you're referring to hypothetical paladins in strictly male terms, btw!) would be close enough to the earth or some such to have the morals required of a paladin.

SoC175
2012-07-25, 05:46 PM
This isn't apprenticing to become a butcher or a blacksmith, this is learning the art of combat, and going to combat is expensive, so it's unlikely anyone is willing to pay for an average peasant's child.What kind of powerful paladin (which at a high level is in all intensive purposes a holy knight) would take in a squire who is from a lower class and has no prior training,Well, that's quite common with the church of St. Cuthberth. Many of his paladins heard their call late in live and have class levels as experts with skills like profession (baker) and such


Yes, but acting honourably all the time is expensive, a nobleman doesn't have to steal or cheat or do anything dishonorable because of his wealth. However what about a peasant? Someone who's starving on a day-to-day basis could easilly be coerced into stealing or banditry.However one could argue that it's only acting honorable when it's not easy. A well fed noble choosing not to steal food doesn't show as much honor as the starving peasant choosing another three days of hunger of the opportunity to steal some food

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-25, 06:31 PM
stuff
I think you may have some misconceptions about what medieval weapons were like, and the idea of honor.

First, an axe used in combat is -not- a wood cutting axe. The blade is generally bigger and slimmer than the wedge-on-a-stick that you use for chopping wood, and in any case even the cheapest axe in the phb still cost several gp.

Second, you're equating paladins with knights for some reason I can't figure out. A knight may be a paladin, but a paladin is not necessarily a knight.

Third, learning to effectively use a sword and wear armor takes only a few days to learn, but years of no-risk practice to master. Actual engagements make you learn real quick or die. The skills gained in either case would be represented by the character's increasing level.

Fourth, The cost for an individual to go to battle is the cost of travel. This only matters when you're moving large numbers of troops. An individual warrior will have been -given- his weapons and armor by his lord, who will likely have aquired it by sending scavengers into battlefields where his side won, unless he's only just getting his war started. Most raw recruits are given cheap leather and spears anyway.

Fifth, the reason peasants weren't the primary fighters in the crusades is because if you earn rank you generally stop being a peasant. You'd be considered a man-at-arms at least. Knights were fairly high-ranking individuals, and did -not- make up the bulk of europes forces, during the crusades.

Finally, if you're only acting honorably when it doesn't cost you anything, that's not honor, it's just not being a D-bag. A starving peasant-turned-paladin can put down his sword for a night and chop firewood for the inkeeper in exchange for a meal and place to sleep in the common room, no lying, cheating, or stealing necessary. Sure it's harder than stealing or cheating, but that's what makes it honorable.

Edit: changed a possibly inflamatory remark to something a bit more polite.

Kaeso
2012-07-26, 07:41 PM
Just a thought, but seeing as paladins usually require plate armor (which is expensive on a realistic setting) aswell as usually have a warhorse (which is also expensive) it just doesn't make any sense to me how people of humble origins could be able to afford to be a paladin. I can see the son of a well-off merchant being a paladin but not that of a peasant.

Depends on how your setting works. Is it a aristocratic setting or a setting with high social mobility? Are the paladin raised to become paladin, handpicked or do they sign up voluntarily? Do they provide their own armor and weapons or does the state/church provide these for them?

If you follow the Greyhawk setting and standard rules, paladin would almost certainly be nobility. Then again, if you compare the prices for equipment to those of say, food and lodging, you'll discover that even level 1 PCs are (on average) extravagantly rich compared to the average commoner. Technically this would mean that even barbarians are most likely nobility (which would just be stupid).